NASA headquarters moved to Cleveland? Lawmakers pen proposal
The lease for the federal agency's current HQ in Washington D.C. expires in 2028.
The letter was led by Ohio's 7th District Congressman Max Miller and Sen. Jon Husted.
NASA's SpaceX Crew-10 prepares for launch to relieve stranded astronauts
It includes signatures from Sen. Bernie Moreno, all of the other Republican representatives in Ohio and Democratic 9th district congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.
'Regardless of political affiliation, this is a wonderful thing for our state. This is a wonderful thing for northeast Ohio to bring NASA home and the headquarters, and it would benefit us tremendously,' Rep. Miller told Fox 8.
The letter outlines several reasons Ohio would be the best option for relocating NASA HQ. It highlights Ohio as the birthplace of aviation and the space available at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland.
Additionally, the letter states that the move would align with President Trump's wishes to move federal agencies out of Washington D.C and to cut federal spending.
It also notes the cost of living being cheaper than other prospective states, which would save taxpayer dollars.
The letter lists Florida, Alabama, and Texas as other interested states.
Rep. Miller noted that Ohio and NASA Glenn has the resources and would be a safe investment for the federal government because of the lack of natural disasters that some southern states see.
'This is Ohio. We are the state of aviation, and aerospace, and civil engineering, and we want to bring that back to the forefront and bring it back home to where it started originally,' Miller said.
Sen. Bernie Moreno also commented on adding his signature to the letter.
'I was proud to join the delegation in encouraging this administration to bring more NASA functions to Ohio. Glenn is a community jewel that should be expanded and the technology they develop should be commercialized in Ohio,' he said in a statement emailed to Fox 8.
A NASA Glenn Research Center spokesperson said they couldn't provide an interview regarding this story and provided the following statement:
'The NASA Headquarters building lease is up in 2028, and the agency is looking at options to lease a new facility in the Washington, D.C. area. NASA does not have plans to build a new headquarters. We recommend contacting the Greater Cleveland Partnership or one of the Ohio delegation members with questions regarding the letter.'
The CEO of Greater Cleveland Partnership, Baiju Shah, said their organization is very excited about what this proposal could mean for the region.
Crop Bistro owner Marcelo Fadul Neves indicted in $846K theft of COVID relief funding
Shah explained how the work being done and technological advancements already being made at NASA Glenn are already impacting space exploration in a big way. He said adding thousands of NASA employees to that would draw more businesses that support NASA's mission.
'We say that the path to the moon and Mars goes through Ohio. What we mean by that is you can't get to the moon or Mars, and certainly not return safely, without the technologies being developed by our neighbors that work at NASA Glenn,' he said.
Rep. Miller said that NASA moving to Ohio would mean nearly 19,000 employees moving to Northeast Ohio.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
Can States Handle Disasters Without FEMA? The Legal Gaps Business Leaders Should Know
HUNT, TEXAS - JULY 6: Vehicles sit submerged as a search and rescue worker looks through debris for ... More any survivors or remains of people swept up in the flash flooding on July 6, 2025 in Hunt, Texas. Heavy rainfall caused flooding along the Guadalupe River in central Texas with multiple fatalities reported. (Photo by) A year already marked by record-smashing heatwaves, catastrophic storms, and deadly flash floods is forcing business leaders to reckon with an unsettling question: What happens if the federal government pulls back from disaster response? The idea of handling disasters without FEMA is not an abstract worry. In recent weeks, political debates have intensified over proposals to reduce federal spending on disaster relief or even eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season, as reported by NBC News. Former President Trump and some congressional leaders have floated plans to shift primary responsibility for disaster recovery to state governments—a move that could leave businesses navigating a patchwork of legal systems without the backstop they've come to rely on for decades. This uncertainty comes as disasters batter communities from coast to coast. In the first half of 2025 alone, the U.S. suffered at least 15 billion-dollar weather disasters, including historic flooding, tornado outbreaks, and prolonged heat waves, according to Yale Climate Connections. Just this past weekend, flash floods devastated Kerr County, Texas, forcing rescues and shutting down businesses in a region still recovering from earlier storms. For business owners, investors, and insurers, this brewing shift raises urgent questions: If FEMA disappears, can state laws and budgets fill the gap? Will private enterprises have to shoulder more responsibility for disaster planning and recovery? And which states are prepared—or dangerously unprepared—to protect their residents and economic lifelines in a post-FEMA landscape? A Federal Safety Net Under ThreatALTADENA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 30: People walk past a FEMA sign following a press conference at the ... More Altadena Disaster Recovery Center on January 30, 2025 in Altadena, California. House Democratic leaders and local officials held the press conference near the Eaton Fire burn zone to call for federal disaster assistance following the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County. (Photo by) Since its founding in 1979, FEMA has been the cornerstone of America's disaster response. It funds emergency shelters, debris removal, rebuilding grants, and cash assistance for displaced families. Critically for businesses, FEMA programs like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant fund projects that reduce future risks, a crucial buffer as extreme weather grows more frequent. Yet the agency has long faced political crossfire, with critics labeling it bloated or inefficient. Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration's previous halt to BRIC funding for certain states, highlighting how political swings can upend even well-established federal programs. If proposals to wind down FEMA proceed, business leaders would be left relying on a fragmented patchwork of state disaster laws—many of which, my research suggests, lack the resources or legal frameworks to handle large-scale crises. State Disaster Laws Are A Patchwork of Authority Every U.S. state has laws empowering governors and local officials to declare emergencies and coordinate response efforts. Yet those powers vary widely in scope, funding, and legal protections for vulnerable communities. Despite these structures, most states still rely heavily on FEMA for funding, specialized teams, and logistical support. Without FEMA, states would have to cover enormous costs themselves. For example, after Hurricane Harvey, Texas received over $13 billion in FEMA aid, money that state coffers alone could not match. The Business Risks Of A FEMA Void Businesses have more skin in this game than ever. Beyond humanitarian concerns, legal and financial risks loom if federal safety nets vanish. Federal aid often helps cover costs insurers won't, such as temporary housing, debris removal, and infrastructure repair. Without that aid, insurance companies may face larger payouts or withdraw entirely from high-risk markets. In Florida, for example, multiple insurers have already exited the market due to hurricane risks, leaving businesses scrambling for coverage. A weakened federal role could mean higher premiums, stricter underwriting, or outright denial of coverage in disaster-prone regions, especially for small and midsize enterprises without deep cash reserves. If state laws differ significantly on evacuation orders, business owners may be caught between conflicting mandates. For instance, if local officials order an evacuation, but state law vests that authority only in the governor, businesses face legal ambiguity about when to close operations, protect staff, or move inventory. Disaster response gaps also raise potential civil rights issues. Federal laws like the Stafford Act prohibit discrimination in disaster aid based on race, disability, or language. Many states lack comparable mandates, meaning vulnerable communities—and businesses serving them—could fall through the cracks if federal oversight disappears. Companies with operations across multiple states face a regulatory minefield if FEMA's uniform national standards vanish. Without coordinated federal logistics, restoring supply chains and reopening businesses could take longer, increasing downtime and losses. Which States Are Ready? Which Aren't? Few states are fully prepared to absorb FEMA's responsibilities. According to my analysis of disaster laws across the South and Mid-Atlantic, only a handful—like Virginia and Texas—have begun integrating equity planning, vulnerable population registries, and robust local emergency powers into state statutes. Other states, particularly smaller ones with limited budgets, may lack: That leaves gaps businesses can't ignore. A company operating in Virginia might navigate disaster recovery relatively smoothly, while the same company in Mississippi or Georgia could face a chaotic patchwork of legal obligations, prolonged closures, and community backlash. What Business Leaders Should Do Now While FEMA's fate remains uncertain, businesses should: FEMA's potential dismantling would represent the biggest shift in American disaster management in generations. Businesses that fail to prepare for handling disasters without FEMA amidst a state-led disaster regime risk higher costs, legal headaches, and reputational damage. Disasters don't respect state lines, but the laws governing them increasingly do. For business leaders, understanding those legal boundaries might be the key to survival in a future where the federal safety net is no longer guaranteed.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Great State Government Return-to-Office U-Turn
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) banned remote work for state employees in March. By June, he was signing a bill that allowed it again. This stunning reversal in just three months tells you everything you need to know about the new reality of government work. The Texas about-face isn't an isolated incident. It's part of a fascinating pattern playing out in state capitals across America, where rigid return-to-office mandates are collapsing under the weight of economic reality and employee resistance. What started as executive orders demanding compliance has evolved into nuanced negotiations that treat office attendance as currency. California's Gavin Newsom escalated from two-day to four-day office requirements, only to watch unions trade away salary increases to keep their flexibility. Indiana's new governor included 'limited exceptions' in his return-to-office order from Day 1, signaling that negotiation had always been the endgame. The numbers driving these reversals are impossible to ignore. When California saved $700 million by downsizing office space and Texas discovered that remote work actually boosted productivity while slashing turnover, the economic argument for forcing everyone back to their desks evaporated. This transformation reveals a new playbook in which location has become as negotiable as salary. The speed of Texas's reversal deserves closer examination. When Abbott issued his executive order in March banning telework for state agencies, he positioned it as a matter of principle. State workers needed to be in state buildings, he said, serving Texans directly. The rhetoric was forceful, the timeline immediate. Yet within weeks, the facade began cracking under operational strain. State agencies that had already downsized their physical footprints suddenly faced the prospect of scrambling for office space. Parking lots that had been decommissioned would need resurrection. And employees who had restructured their lives around remote work began polishing their resumes for private-sector opportunities. The bipartisan rebellion that followed wasn't driven by ideology but by data. Texas's own productivity study showed that remote work hadn't just maintained service levels — it had actually improved them while dramatically reducing employee turnover. When Republican Rep. Giovanni Capriglione introduced House Bill 5196 to let agencies set their own remote policies, he wasn't making a statement about worker rights. He was acknowledging mathematical reality. Abbott's signature on the bill in June represents more than a policy reversal. It's an admission that top-down mandates can't override bottom-up economics. But while Texas stumbled into reversal through legislative intervention, California's governor appears to be playing a more sophisticated game. His journey from two-day office requirements to a four-day mandate might look like escalation, but the emerging pattern suggests something more strategic. When the Professional Engineers in California Government secured their one-year reprieve from the four-day requirement, they paid for it with salary concessions. Days later, the attorneys' union struck a remarkably similar deal. Newsom's mandate created leverage where none had existed before. SEIU Local 1000's lawsuit challenging the order cites the state's savings of 'at least $700 million' from office downsizing — money that would evaporate if 95,000 hybrid workers actually showed up four days a week. The California Department of General Services has shed 1.2 million square feet of Sacramento office space, a 14 percent reduction that represents real taxpayer savings. Reversing that efficiency would require a real estate shopping spree at precisely the moment California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. The genius lies in how the mandate functions as a negotiating tool. Unions that might have held firm on salary increases suddenly found themselves trading compensation for commute time. The Professional Engineers accepted mandatory unpaid time off that effectively negates their 3 percent raise for two years. In both cases, the unions prioritized flexibility over pay, revealing just how valuable remote work has become to their members. These reversals illuminate a broader transformation in how governments value physical presence versus actual productivity. When Gallup research indicates that flexible work arrangements can cut attrition by 50 percent, and when replacing skilled professionals costs between half and twice their annual salary, the mathematics of mandatory office attendance stop adding up. Indiana's new governor, Mike Braun, seems to be taking notes from both states with his executive order requiring state workers back by July 2025 but leaving 'limited exceptions' for ongoing negotiations. For public-sector unions, this new reality requires strategy. The California engineers and attorneys who accepted pay concessions to maintain remote work flexibility made a calculated bet that their members value time and autonomy over marginal salary increases. They are establishing that workplace flexibility has become a fundamental term of employment that can't be altered by executive fiat. The return-to-office reversals sweeping through state governments represent acknowledgments that the fundamental nature of work has changed. We are witnessing the emergence of a new employment paradigm where location flexibility has become as negotiable as wages and benefits. The smart leaders are those who recognized that physical presence has become a bargaining chip, valuable precisely because employees prize flexibility so highly. Rather than squander political capital on unenforceable mandates, they are trading flexibility for concessions that actually improve their states' fiscal positions. The organizations that thrive will be those that recognize flexibility not as a perk to be revoked, but as a strategic asset to be thoughtfully deployed. Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller' Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.'
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Seattle city attorney candidates clash over crime policy
A competitive four-way race pits Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison against three challengers who say her approach is too punitive and fails to address the root causes of crime. Why it matters: The Aug. 5 primary will decide which two candidates move on to the November general election. Context: The city attorney prosecutes misdemeanors and helps shape the city's criminal justice policies, while representing the city in civil cases. State of play: Davison, who was elected in 2021, faces three opponents, all running to her left. Although the city attorney role is nonpartisan, Davison ran for statewide office as a Republican in 2020. All of her opponents identify as Democrats. Zoom in: Former U.S. assistant attorney Erika Evans left her job as a federal prosecutor earlier this year, citing opposition to Justice Department changes under President Trump. Nathan Rouse, a public defender who previously worked in private practice, has made ending cash bail for low-level offenses a key piece of his campaign platform. And Rory O'Sullivan, who represents workers seeking unemployment benefits, says his work on Seattle's Democracy Voucher program and successful ranked-choice voting push show he can help deliver big reforms. What they're saying: All three challengers disagree with Davison's 2023 decision to shut down Seattle's community court, which offered people resources and a chance to get their cases dismissed. They've emphasized the need for additional services — such as housing and drug treatment — to help reduce recidivism. They also have criticized Davison's push to create "stay out" zones that ban people accused of prostitution or drug offenses from certain areas, calling the policy ineffective. The other side: Davison said her efforts have helped "eliminate open air drug markets" and combat sex trafficking, particularly on Aurora Avenue North. Between the lines: While campaigning, Davison has emphasized ways she's opposed Trump, including joining a lawsuit over the administration's threats to cut funding to cities that don't comply with federal immigration enforcement. The big picture: It's unusual to have a four-way primary race that's this competitive, political consultant Crystal Fincher told Axios. All three challengers are credible and "could have a really good shot" at beating Davison in the general election, she said.
